As a semi-popular blogger, pundit, and all around neat guy, I have a deep respect for freedom of speech. After all, without it, I’d just be some lunatic behind bars talking about how bad government sucks. As it stands, I’m just in a rubber room, so yay, I guess?
I wouldn’t bring this up unless it was relevant, and thanks to Queen Kamala the Appointed and the Left, it’s become very relevant, but not in a good way. Whether it’s The Social Media Site Formerly Known as Twitter getting banned in Brazil for alleged misinformation to Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz and Presidential candidate Kamala Harris both in favor of some form of government intervention/regulation of social media, the topic is as relevant today as it was when the Bill of Rights was passed.
free speech
What the Left thinks it means – the right to express yourself without government interference, except when it crosses certain lines
What it really means – the right to express yourself without government interference, regardless of who you are and what you say
As with guns, cars, and movies like “The Room,” freedom of speech can be used for different ends. That’s why it’s important to consider the implications of their use prior to firing a gun, driving a car, or paying for a ticket to see “The Room.” Oh, and speaking out.
Yes, there are some limitations to free speech, and they’re established as a means of protecting people from physical or reputational damage. Some speech like “fighting words” aren’t considered free speech because a) they are designed to promote a violent response, and b) the person engaging in it is kinda asking for an ass-whuppin’. For those of you younger folks reading this, fighting words are what we old folks used to do in lieu of internet trolling because the Internet hadn’t been invented yet. (Thanks, Al Gore.)
Anyway, the Left has tried to apply the same approach used with fighting words with other forms of speech. Each one could be a Lexicon entry in and of itself, but here is a list of these speech forms the Left doesn’t like.
hate speech – Basically, any speech that makes Leftists look like assholes
misinformation – Basically, any speech that proves Leftists are assholes
election interference – Basically, any speech that shows Leftists losing
election misinformation – Basically, any speech that proves Leftist politicians are full of shit
I’m not sure, but I’m sensing a pattern here…
Although a case can be made for regulations on these, the case is pretty fucking bad. You can pass as many laws banning them, but they run smack in the face of the very thing Leftists claim to be all about: free speech. Yes, some speech is abhorrent and would make Gandhi want to grab a shotgun and start kicking ass, but the answer to it isn’t cracking down on the bad speech; it’s countering it with good speech. Dennis Miller put it best (and I’m paraphrasing it from here, so please don’t sue me, Mr. Miller): No free speech gives you Hitler. Healthy free speech gives you David Duke. There’s a big, big difference.
The problem is the Left doesn’t understand that difference. Either that, or they don’t get the reference, which isn’t all that uncommon with Miller’s work. Regardless, Leftists treat any speech that isn’t from their echo chamber as dangerous. And it’s not because it’s particularly threatening, dangerous to society as a whole, or offensive to society as a whole. It’s because it’s not something they can control with any degree of success.
Having said that, they aren’t going to stop trying. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, information countering the official narrative got censored and social media accounts that spread that information got removed. Even as Mark “No, I’m Not Data” Zuckerberg had to admit the Brick Tamland Administration pressured Meta to crack down on certain content. And I’m guessing you know what content got the ban hammer.
But you know who didn’t get nailed for COVID misinformation? All the figureheads and media outlets who peddled the Administration’s bullshit. Seems “Trust the Science” didn’t include actual science. Then again, the “Trust the Science” people also believe men can be women just because they feel that way, so…
It’s bullshit like this (the censorship, not the men claiming to be women) that made Elon Musk take on the mantle of leadership when it comes to free speech online. He has rightly made it his cause, and given the lack of accountability for those who on the Left who violate the Left’s own rules (I’m looking at you, Rachel Maddow!), it’s clear we need someone who not only understands free speech, but also allows it.
Musk may not be the best person to do it, but at least he’s doing it. Since taking over the Social Media Site Formerly Known As Twitter, he has reversed many of the previous decisions made and reinstated accounts that he felt were terminated unjustly. Granted, that gave us back noted white nationalist and all around weirdo Nick Fuentes, but the upside is we can now keep better track of him and what he says. That’s something you don’t get with free speech crackdowns. Forcing people like Fuentes to go off the free speech grid makes it harder to track him down and combat whatever speech he’s spouting. With a healthy respect for free speech, he makes himself known, so we can do a little rhetorical White Supremacist Whack-A-Mole.
And if you know any of the scuttlebutt about him, the mole part might not be complete hyperbole.
Freedom of speech is one of the bedrock principles we should all strive to want. Without it, how would we redress grievances with the government (of which your humble correspondent has plenty), spread the message to others to gather peaceably, or print out flyers? And for those of you eagle-eyed readers out there, you might recognize the examples I just gave as rights covered under the First Amendment. If you didn’t, that’s okay. You’re still brighter than 100% of the dipshits who think free speech should be limited because fee-fees get hurt.
I don’t think free speech is going anywhere if Queen Kamala the Appointed and Vice Queen TIMMAH get into office because neither one has the brains necessary to make the case in favor of getting rid of it, but that doesn’t mean we can ease up protecting it. As Ronald Reagan put it:
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
And if you can’t trust a man who acted with a chimp, who can you trust?
Tag: election interference
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With the Presidential election a little under 5 months away (I’m surprised I didn’t hear more about this), all eyes are on the election process as much as the two major party candidates running (or in President Brick Tamland’s case, stumbling). While the Left has been repeating “Trump is a convicted felon” until their face turns blue…r, they’ve also been raising concerns about election interference. After all, our elections are sacrosanct and it’s clear Trump and the GOP is trying to weaken our faith in the election process by questioning the results.
You know, like these same Leftists did in 2000, 2004, 2016…
This raises the question of what constitutes election interference. A good question, but one with some really bad answers.
election interference
What the Left thinks it means – steps taken to question or derail our elections
What it really means – a nebulous term that covers a lot of ground without providing consistent and concrete examples
Elections used to be easy to handle. You show up, show ID, go into a booth with a curtain like a small shower, and pull your levers or mark your ballots. Or in some cases, mark your ballots while pulling your lever. And even when we disagreed with the outcomes, we lived with them without discord.
Then, the political parties realized they could cheat. Whether it was Chicago Mayor Richard Daley delivering votes for John F. Kennedy or the whole hanging chad controversy from the 2000 Presidential election, it became more commonplace to think our elections could be rigged through underhanded means. But surely two major political parties with decades of shadowy meetings and more vices than Sodom and Gomorrah with an all you can eat buffet would never sink to fucking with the election process, right?
Nevermind.
When you think about it (and I have because our Internet was down for a couple of hours), election interference as a concept has a pretty wide scope. Even with the various state election laws and federal election laws, there are a lot of gray areas. Just like my hair these days.
But the existence of laws themselves doesn’t make partisans any less tempted to break them. And when you consider election law violations are investigated as infrequently as the media covering anything involving Hunter Biden, there’s a good chance any election crimes are going to go unpunished. If anything, I’m surprised more people haven’t started questioning whether our elections aren’t as staged as pro wrestling.
Actually, that’s not a fair comparison. Pro wrestling is much more on the level.
Now, that’s going to get me branded as an election denier by the Left, which is fine. I’ve been insulted worse by better people. But if you’re going to tell me my questioning of election results that make less sense than a Kamala Harris sentence is threatening the integrity of elections, you’d better come with evidence beyond “we’re uncomfortable with you telling the truth about our election crimes.”
In fact, Leftists consider what they consider to be “misinformation” to be election interference. Considering these Leftists can’t figure out what a woman is, I’m not going to take them that seriously.
And it’s this same attitude I’m taking towards the Left’s sudden concern with election integrity and preventing interference. From where I sit (in my living room in my comfy chair as I write this), this concern is based not on acknowledging the screamingly obvious, but hiding the election interference that has already occurred and may be gearing up again to help President Tamland limp across the finish line in November.
One safeguard the Right has asked to be put in place to reduce election interference is voter ID laws. Actually showing identification and having a poll worker confirm you are who you say you are is a good way to better ensure election integrity.
Which is why the Left opposes it. Not only do they consider them to be burdensome, but racist! After all, it might make minorities actually have to do something outrageous, like…getting a driver’s license!
Yet, voter ID laws could easily fit under the Left’s umbrella for election interference because it doesn’t fit in with the overall plan: electing more Leftists. And with the election of more Leftists come the appointment of more Leftists into positions that you’d need an act of God, an edict from the Vatican, and a signed note from your mother to get them out of.
To go along with this, Leftists could consider laws against electioneering to fall under that designation. Fortunately, we’ve never had a major party offer food and water to people in line to vote, like, ever, right? Also, consider laws restricting mail in ballots. Certainly, the Left would consider that election interference. In fact, as it currently sits, election interference could mean just about anything.
Except for the shit they do. Like…oh I don’t know…getting their favorite rich relative Uncle George Soros to push for Leftists to be responsible for counting the votes in various states? And if these people are aligned with one side or the other, what safeguards are there to prevent them from miscounting votes or tossing out valid ballots while excusing invalid ones? And if there appear to be boxes and boxes of ballots that mysteriously show up at the 13th hour, it’s up to these folks to determine if they’re valid, even if there are discrepancies.
Call me a cynic, but I’ve seen too much election-related fuckery because of dishonest bullshit from partisan players. And with how vague and contradictory the Left’s definition of election interference is, I have zero faith in their professed desire to tackle it.
However, there is a method to their madness, that being holding the Right accountable to the rules. Thank you, Saul Alinsky. The only difference is the rules are being set by the Left and the Right is going along with them because, well, they’re the rules. The Left has no intention of following the rules they make, but they’ll be sticklers whenever the Right deviates from them.
That is, until the Right decides to force the issue. Voter ID laws, restrictions on mail-in ballots, and other options on the table are not only reasonable, but doable. And they put the Left in a difficult position: support laws that will go a long way to ensuring election integrity (and cut down on the amount of bitching from everyone except the Left), or admit they’re full of shit.
Guess which one I’m betting on.